Yes but I think you still need a unique fingerprint in order to tie that data to a single person… and there are much less people who use ad-blockers than those who don’t, so to me it’s an extra bit of identifying information; obviously this puts the privacy-conscious user in a difficult position.
why change the title
As I mentioned, I felt it was more transparent to say where the money comes from and let people draw their own conclusions. Of course there will always be dissenting opinions no matter which title is used, I think that just comes with the territory, and I’m ok with that; I don’t think there is a single right or wrong answer. I’m sorry that you disagree with my choice. I encourage you to make similar posts wherever you’d like with your own desired title.
Thank you for your perspective.
I don’t think it was meant exactly that literally. If you use online banking then of course you have to allow whatever they require for it to work. But for non-necessary services that have an account feature… any time you use those of course will have more of your information out there to sell and track.
In the context of fingerprinting I disagree. The vast majority of the world population do NOT use an ad-blocker (supposedly maybe 15% do at most)… so having an adblocker can be used to narrow you down even more IMO. Many extensions can have this issue afaik, especially if it modifies the DOM.
Original title was “F-Droid Awarded Open Technology Fund’s FOSS Sustainability Grant”. Not trying to be tinfoily but I thought it would have been even more irresponsible to not make it clear where the money really comes from as I think most people aren’t aware.
Either way, please do your own research and draw your own conclusions and I promise I have no intentional agenda in reporting this… besides transparency.
rustdesk
hah, there’s nowhere near enough infrastructure to handle that.
Yes however they have also had servers seized before… I think it’s not unrealistic for some to believe they could be compromised after that.
Sadly, hindsight makes everyone look guilty.
You mean the coward who sent fundraising messages while hiding inside the Capitol on Jan 6?
Then are they really that great? Nobody wants to work with people who are hard to work with…
Because marcan is overreacting as usual, and is a very questionable character overall.
I have read the spec, used the service and also implemented my own clients before, that is why I’m so confused by what you’re saying, because this has not been my experience at all. If a user joins a channel, whether they are an admin or not, whether it is encrypted or not, then unless the channel is explicitly setup to only allow verified users to talk (not the default), my understanding is there is nothing preventing that new user from seeing all new messages in the chat.
I don’t understand. How would the sender prevent messages from going to the admin user that joined the room? It sounds like you’re implying new users simply can’t join a room? That makes no sense to me… I’ve certainly never experienced that. I see new users join encrypted rooms all the time and they can talk just fine… so what’s the deal? And isn’t verification off by default?
End-to-end encryption ensures that only the intended endpoints can read the messages
But who/what gets to decide who the intended recipients are? Can’t the homeserver admin just join the channel and then the other members would exchange keys automatically and now they can see what people say?
What do you have to say about this then?
In an encrypted room even with fully verified members, a compromised or hostile home server can still take over the room by impersonating an admin. That admin (or even a newly minted user) can then send events or listen on the conversations.
Perhaps we have a different definition of “impersonate”… not everyone will pay attention to unverified warnings, and afaik they can still communicate with people (just maybe not read old messages)… but I would love to be proven wrong.
Unfortunately even with E2EE, the admins of a homeserver can still impersonate you or take over your channel.
Of course you could run your own instance, or maybe none of this is part of your threat model, but I felt like bringing it up either way.
Most packages/installs of Signal contain proprietary code. I suggest Molly-FOSS instead.
last time I checked, blind users could not even install any mainstream distro anymore, because they all switched to wayland, and that broke screen readers in the installer.
I think real intelligence by definition requires empathy and humility, which is typically the opposite of such dogmatism in my opinion.
“As a rule, strong feelings about issues do not emerge from deep understanding.” -Sloman and Fernbach